Article: Tom Petty Download At 24 bit / 48 kHz Plus CA Recommendation

[DMark1]

mpanwar: Can your super high end DAC play 24/192 multichannel? If so, I'd like to know what it is so I can look it up for my system. And, how much does it cost?<br />

<br />

My OPPO BDP-83SE has 32 bit ESS Sabre DACs and can play back 24/192 in 7.1 multichannel. It was $900, and also plays beautiful HD video, SACD, DVD-A, CD, and decodes HDCD.

[hifitubes]

even mp3s sound super crazy good on supa-fly super DAC ; )<br />

<br />

Oppo, btw, has the BEST customer service I have ever experienced, bar-none (well maybe w/ exception of Grado).

[mpanwar]

No sorry it does not do multichannel. 2 channel only. I have many a multi channel system but they are mainly for video and games.<br />

<br />

<br />

Here is the link:<br />

<br />

http://www.decware.com/newsite/homepage.html<br />

<br />

I have their SET Zen Amp and the DAC<br />

<br />

http://www.decware.com/newsite/ZDAC1.html<br />

<br />

Trust me I have been though many a DAC including ARC, PS Audio, Musical Fidelity etc, and this one bests them all.<br />

<br />

M.<br />

[barrows]

1. "future, but I don't think the disc formats are dead yet. There are still some downsides to storing music files on a computer hard drives - namely cost and complexity of back up systems, lack of portability of the content to an audio buddy's place, difficulty in setting these sytems up for non-techies like me, etc."<br />

<br />

Answer: I understand that you may not be up to speed on computer playback, spend a little more time here and I think you will begin to realize that your concerns are ill founded. Back up is easy! A Tb hard drive can be had for around $100.00 and can back up a huge library. Alternatively, one can burn files to DVD data discs for back up, this is not expensive. As to portability, one can have a Tb portable HD that holds almost 2000 CDs worth of music in the palm of your hand. Or, if you want to have something in a playable format (CD) you can burn anything in your collection to CD very easily-portability and flexibility is one of the strengths of computer based audio.<br />

<br />

2. "BTW, I believe this player was awarded an A rating from Stereophile, and it serves as the basis for the Ayre player, so I think it has some respectible "audiophile cred"<br />

<br />

I'll not comment directly on what Stereophile ratings actually mean... As to the Ayre connection to the Oppo-there is no comparison. The Ayre sounds entirely different: they only use the following parts from the Oppo: the drive, and drive control hardware/firmware, the video processing hardware/firmware (which is very good). Ayre, replaces all the power supplies with new new ones, all the digital audio boards and stages are replaced with Ayre designed/implemented solutions: new digital filters, new clocks, new DAC chips, new fully discrete circuit I to V conversion, new discrete circuit FET analog output stage. Essentially everything that contributes to the sound of the Oppo is ditched and replaced with Ayre designed stuff.<br />

Not to say anything against the Oppo, which is a great product on its own, and offers tremendous value-but it does not offer what I would consider true high end sound.<br />

I agree that supporting bands/producers/record companies that offer high resolution is a good idea-but look what happened with SACD (release of upsampled material, not true high res, etc). I prefer to support those that realize that hoping for robust DRM is a lost cause- producer T-Bone Burnett for example, whose wondeful job on the Alison Krauss/Robert Plant album Raising Sand is available as a 24/96 download, or Nine Inch Nails, who pre-released The Slip as a 24/96 download from their own website. This is a forward thinking approach, rather than the "looking back" approach of a new, compressed/processed DRMed format like BR Disc which requires everyone to (again) purchase new hardware.

[DMark1]

mpanwar: <br />

<br />

Thanks, that's good to know. I'm checking it out now. <br />

<br />

DMark1

[DMark1]

barrows:<br />

<br />

Great info, thanks for taking the time to write all that. You are giving me some good ideas and starting to convince me. :--) I do own a 1 TB drive for backup now, but haven't taken the step to connect my Windows computer to my home system yet. I do not have a standalone DAC, but I do have an EAD (Enlightened Audio Design) TheaterMaster Ovation-8 8-channel pre/pro that does 24/96. <br />

<br />

Any ideas for a good unit to convert USB from the computer to SPDIF on the EAD pre/pro???<br />

<br />

I've never heard any Ayre equipment, but all the reviews have been raves. I love their design, and it seems like they are well engineered and great sounding units. I would love to own some Ayre gear someday. I'm sure they have improved the Oppo player dramatically - for a steep premium price, of course. The Oppo is a great value for everything it does well, and it was a significant upgrade from my previous CAL Audio Icon Mk2 16/44.1 CD player. <br />

<br />

I will look up the hi-rez music you referenced for my collection. Thanks!

[joelha]

Mpanwar,<br />

<br />

Thanks for recommending this great website.<br />

<br />

I see the 16/44 files but, whiles there's mention made of 24/96 files being available, I'm not able to figure out where they are.<br />

<br />

Would you help me out and tell me where to find them?<br />

<br />

Thanks again,<br />

<br />

Joel

[DMark1]

You have to buy the bluray or vinyl, which comes with a code and a link you can then use to download the hi-rez 24/48 files...<br />

<br />

There is currently no option to just buy and download the 24/48k files by themselves... that's what all the discussion has been about lately!

[mpanwar]

Joel,<br />

<br />

Start here:<br />

<br />

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=(format:(24Bit%20FLAC)%20OR%20(flac24)%20OR%20(24-bit)%20OR%2024bit)%20AND%20collection:etree<br />

<br />

Lot of music is 24 Bit at either 48 or 96. Sometime they record at 24/96 but then put it up at CD Red book.<br />

<br />

I have downloaded quite a bit of 24/96 from great bands and most if really good. Typically two or 4 mikes and up front. So it really feels live.<br />

<br />

Good luck.<br />

[machinehead]

Cool that more mainstream bands are offering HiRez files.<br />

Not sure I agree that they should cost more.<br />

If they are native files, then they require less processing (lack of compression) and since they are downloads, they save the cost of pressing CD's and printing artwork. Seems like they should be cheaper.

[barrows]

A few reasons we should be willing to pay more for high res:<br />

<br />

1. They offer higher performance, hence they are intrinsically worth more.<br />

2. Any file to be downloded must be hosted on a server, server space costs $. A high res 24/96 file will take about three times more server space as 16/44.1. And 24/176.4 takes about five times more server space than 16/44.1.<br />

3. Downloading high res takes up more internet bandwidth/time.<br />

4. Profit incentive: if we want record companies to make more high res available, they will need a profit incentive to do so-we should be willing to provide that incentive.<br />

I am not suggesting audiophiles should be paying >$40 for high res downloads, but a reasonable upcharge over CD makes sense to me. Say a CD download is ~$12.00, then it seems reasonable for 24/96 to be ~$20.00, and 24/176.4 to be ~$30.00.

[labjr]

barrows,<br />

<br />

<br />

I would argue that CD's are lower quality. Higher sampling rates are just bringing it closer to analog and maybe exceeding it it some cases. <br />

<br />

If server space and bandwidth costs so much then send me the disc with files on it. I'd rather have that anyway. The record companies cry if everything they sell doesn't make pure profit. They could sell us hi-res recordings for $100 and they'd still be complaining. <br />

<br />

I have no problem paying for something that's "really" better. The sampling rate alone doesn't necessarily make it better. I wouldn't mind paying $25-30 for albums like audiophile labels are charging for 180 gram vinyl with original artwork and actually doing the mastering properly. <br />

<br />

Have qualified people like Kevin Gray and Steve Hoffman do the mastering at 24/192 and use the files for creating all other formats. Otherwise the major labels will be selling us up-converted crap like they have before. They always seem to take the path of least resistance to the bottom line.<br />

<br />

I don't understand why labels like MFSL and Audio Fidelity aren't doing any Hi-Res digital yet? I guess lack of a standard format.<br />

<br />

I imagine guys like Michael Fremer are bugging the record companies to do hi-res remastering. And it doesn't seem to be forthcoming. I'm not sure what little guys like us can do to get the ball rolling. <br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

[bottlerocket]

It's interesting that artists like Tom Petty are inching closer to setting up their own download sites. <br />

<br />

Paul McCartney recently announced plans to move his entire music, video and art archives to the web with the help of HP. <br />

<br />

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Cloud-Computing/Sir-Paul-Picks-HP-to-Build-Operate-His-Own-Private-Cloud-891402/<br />

<br />

It will be interesting to see if any of his music is offered in hi-res downloads. With a partner like HP, the infrastructure should not be a problem.

[barrows]

sure what this means:<br />

<br />

<br />

"I would argue that CD's are lower quality. Higher sampling rates are just bringing it closer to analog and maybe exceeding it it some cases."<br />

<br />

My post was in favor of more high resolution, what is the above referring to?<br />

<br />

Sure, it would be great to get high res via wav/aiff files on a DVD data disc, or even a usb "card" like Cardas is now offering. But I am fine with downloads as well, and less physical media means less waste, less manufacturing, less shipping, less packaging, less use of fossil fuels: and therefore much cheaper and better for the planet.<br />

If you require hard copies for your own piece of mind, burning your downloaded files to DVD data discs is very easy. If you want artwork, etc, buy Vinyl-much bigger art!<br />

<br />

Good question RE MoFi. I suspect licensing agreements (DRM issues) are holding them back from offering high resolution re-masters. They are still occasionally releasing SACD. DRM is really the red herring here, until the publishing houses and record distributors learn that DRM does not work, releases offering in the clear high res PCM will be limited. Still, quality conscious producers like T. Bone Burnett (John Mellencamp, Alison Krauss/Robert Plant) are trying to get 24/96 versions of their product out into the marketplace.<br />

<br />

RE, musicians creating their own download sites, I think we will see much more of this in the future, and this model will also put more strain on the "traditional" record companies. It really is too bad these companies are as slow and backwards as the US auto industry has been.<br />

Note-Nine Inch Nails runs their own download site, and released their latest full album, for free, at 24/96 as a pre-release!

[labjr]

<i>"I am not<br />

sure what this means:<br />

</i><br />

<br />

What I meant is that for record companies to say they are giving us something better than CD for more money isn't saying much except they are charging us more for something we should have gotten anyway. When CDs came out they charged us more for a format that sounded worse than vinyl. Then didn't they get caught price fixing? They're no better than the airlines or any other industry that lies to it's consumers. <br />

<br />

It would be better if the artists and audiophile labels get involved because they care about the quality of the material being released.<br />

<br />

As far as DRM goes, I don't get that either. CD's are easy to copy with no DRM. Does a higher sampling rate somehow make them easier to pirate? or more prone to pirating? Do the pirates even care about the quality?

[barrows]

companies want a product they can sell without fear of it being copied, that is why they liked SACD, it was designed as a proprietary format from the beginning (guess what, Sony is a record company). Evenso, clever people can find ways to make good copies of it-this is the rub with DRM, it will always get hacked. The record companies are now re-embracing vinyl, as although the content can be copied, the actual vinyl cannot easily be copied and shared. It is cool/retro for kids these days to be into vinyl.<br />

The problem is record companies are too slow in their thinking, they still have not awoken to the real potential of the download/high res marketplace. It would be easy for them to embrace it, and offer things like the entire Led Zepplin catalog at 24/96, and make money from it, but instead they have their heads buried so far up their a**** that they cannot see the light.<br />

As far as I am concerned, I have no problem with them making money from this, in fact, I hope that they will, as the profit motive is the only thing that will get them moving on this. Relying on audiophile companies for this is a non starter for me, they do not own the material or publishing rights, while a trickle of high res from the audiophile companies will continue to come, until UMG, etc get moving on this their will only be a very limited selection of music available in higher resolution.

[machinehead]

I would agree that large companies tend to move too slowly, esp. when they are in old industries that are entrenched in old ways.<br />

<br />

As far as cost goes, the server storage space and bandwidth to download are a pitance compared with the cost of making a master press for a vinyl LP, or even a pressing for CD's, then the printing, packaging, including security tags, cases, shrink wrapping, then the shipping cost to stores, and having to pay for inventory of all of the said items, and not know how many will sell, so they have to pay to warehouse enough physical media to meet a calculated demands.<br />

<br />

All of these costs and associated personnel salaries are eliminated with download offerings. Again, the recordings are all done in HiRes on the master recordings, compressing it to 16/44.1 requires expensive equipment and labor time. Uploading the master files in HiRes to server is almost free.<br />

HiRes downloads should be cheaper if not the same price. The reason we pay more, is all marketing, because there is a demand and we will pay it. At some point CD's will cost more that HiRes downloads, but I am not sure how long it will take. The more artists that produce their recordings and offer them on their own sites for download, the faster this will reconcile.<br />

<br />

I am all for encouraging the companies to offer HiRes, but I think the needs for record companies is slowing winding down. Marketing cost and tour costs are their only real function at this point, as high quality studios exist in most artists homes at a reasonable cost at this point...<br />

<br />

A good producer and engineer, and graphic artist seem offer to take the place of large record labels.

[labjr]

Artists should do their own marketing and cut out the record industry. DRM or not, they'll make a lot more money. That thought must scare the hell out of the record companies. Probably the reason they refuse to change.

[DMark1]

In a perfect world, artists should concentrate on making good music. Expecting artists to be great musicians, business people, marketers, producers, distributors, etc just isn't realistic in my book. <br />

<br />

The talents it takes to be a great musician are miles apart from being a successful business person. I think it would be very rare to find all of those traits in more than a few people.<br />

<br />

Yes, musicians could make alot more money for themselves if they wore all of these hats, but if they have to spend 80-90% of their time marketing and "doing business", then their musical creativity, performance, etc will suffer. And by extension, the quality of product will go down for listeners like us.<br />

<br />

I am a semi-pro musician myself, so I know a little bit about this topic....

[barrows]

Yup, I totally agree with what you are saying. But, unfortunately, if a musician is going to be a proffessional, and expect to earn a living in the music "business", they will need to become business savvy, or employ a manager they entrust implicitly with their business dealings. The music industry has a long history of ripping off musicians, and the artist who does not take heed of this, and expects the industry folks to look out for their best interests is unlikely to be succesful in putting food on the table.<br />

This is the rub for most people involved in creative "professions"; the business structure is not generally designed to be supportive of the creative endeavor-instead, the business structure is designed to provide the most profit to the business people.

[firedog]

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD00602527486345

[labjr]

Well it's about time. At least someone's listening to the wants of audiophiles. And I hope they're doing it right.

[machinehead]

Dam the torpedeo's is right, after everyone has problems downloading their $30 album all weekend. I forsee a few volleys heading HDTracks way...